Almost 3 years after the
coalition government of David Cameron and Nicholas Clegg was voted into
office, its draft legislation on family justice has finally been published.
Articles in the media have waxed about the government's "shared
parenting" proposal claiming it assures “meaningful”
parent/child involvement post-divorce. It clearly does not. The words
of the proposal are as starkly plain as can be and there is no requirement
that parents (i.e. fathers) have a meaningful relationship with their
children. Judges would be required to order that only if the words were
in the family law legislation. They are not. Commentators should read
the proposal.

What does a parent’s
(i.e. father) “ongoing involvement” in his child’s
life mean? That’s not defined, so it can mean anything any individual
judge wishes it to mean. Perhaps a Christmas card once a year would
suffice. What about monthly “visits” via Skype with his
child whose mother has been allowed to move with him/her thousands of
miles away?

Should it become law; the
legislation will make not the least difference in the custody edicts
of British family courts. Those rulings reflect judicial prejudice far
more than they do the directives of applicable law. After all, no British
law requires judges to give custody to mothers 90% of the time, but
that’s what they do. No law requires those judges to refuse to
enforce the meagre contact rights of children, but they do that too.
There is nothing in the proposal that will change that mindset.

Against this backdrop, tens
of thousands of children a year are losing contact with their fathers
because of a failing family court system and disastrous custody arrangements.
(The Telegraph 16 Nov 2009). This is a national disgrace. Anyone who
wanted to could see the deleterious effects of fatherlessness in the
streets almost every day of the week. A few minutes’ thought would
tell anyone that as a simple matter of economics, keeping fathers and
children connected makes sense. How much money do we spend every year
trying to address social problems – crime, drug and alcohol abuse,
boy’s educational difficulties, teen pregnancy etc. – that
fathers themselves could hugely ameliorate? The reasons to keep fathers
in children’s lives are many and there is no real counterargument.

As to Australia’s shared
parenting experience anecdotes are not evidence of a rule, nor must
they trump human rights. Far from the 2006 reforms being a failure misleadingly
reported by the Norgrove review the Australian Institute of Family Studies
evaluation concluded that "The philosophy of equal shared parental
responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal system
professionals and service professionals." Litigation rates have
fallen and the Equal Parental Responsibility presumption is beneficial
and working well for children, including children under 3, according
to parents. (Kaspiew, et al 2009) Opinion polls in Australia have confirmed
those assessments.

The attached parliamentary
speeches by your Australian conservative party counterparts confirm
their continuing support for the 2006 legislation that they introduced.
In sum, what we saw in Australia was not the failure of shared parenting
but the latest round in an ideological struggle orchestrated by anti-shared
parenting forces in the Gillard led Labor government that is analogous
to a painful and unnecessary courtroom squabble between former spouses.
Children’s rights to their mothers and fathers must transcend
party politics.

In the light of your well
known support of genuine shared parenting we respectfully request that
you move the below highlighted revisions to the UK government‘s
timid proposal. “As Emery (2007) points out, a legal presumption
does not abandon children’s best interests, but provides a clear,
evidence-based definition of children’s needs in the divorce transition.”
(Kruk 2012)

Proposed Framework

(2A) A court, in the circumstances
mentioned in subsection(4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within
subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that substantial,
meaningful involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned
will further the child's welfare.

Definition

The term, substantial, meaningful
involvement in this part denotes a parenting arrangement in which both
parents not only have equal rights and responsibilities for their children's
welfare and upbringing, but also have an active role to play in the
everyday routines of their children's care and development. Each remain
as salient attachment figures in their children’s lives, the child
spending substantial but not necessarily equal time with each parent.

Substantial meaningful involvement
gives emphasis to maintaining or maximizing the child's emotional psychological
and physical well-being as much as possible. The term substantial, meaningful
involvement encompasses shared day-to-day care of children and equal
authority regarding the children’s education, medical care, and
religious upbringing.

For the purposes of subsection
(2A), a child will be taken to spend substantial time with a parent
only if:

a) The time the child spends
with the parent includes both (i) Days and nights that fall on weekends
and holidays; and (ii) Days and nights that do not fall on weekends
or holidays; and

(b) The time the child spends
with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

(i) The child's daily and
nightly routine; and

(ii) Occasions and events
that are of particular significance to the child; and

(c) The time the child spends
with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events
that are of special significance to the parent.

As a highly regarded family
values parliamentarian your endorsement of the submitted amendments
would be most persuasive and I have included recently published research
recommending public policy in favour of shared residential parenting
for your consideration. To paraphrase Professor Linda Nielsen (2013)
‘Misconceptions that are not grounded on a broad spectrum of up
to date, methodologically sound and statistically important empirical
data have an impact on custody decisions and custody laws. By empirical
data I mean research studies where quantitative data has been statistically
analyzed and published in peer reviewed academic journals – in
contrast to articles where opinions or theories are being presented,
often without benefit of peer review.’ In that spirit the attached
studies present current research refuting erroneous common beliefs related
to shared residential parenting.